Healthcare Reform - Obama

There has been an uproar in my community over the passing of the new healthcare reform. Personally, I have no opinion on the subject which is what brings me here.

The reasoning behind my lack of opinion is that I was no reasoning to base an opinion off of. My community -- for the lack of a better word -- is a rich, white, Chicago suburb. They are extremely against any tax increase to pay for others. All I here about is how bad Obama is and how he is going to raise taxes and make the wealthy pay for the less fortunate etc.. So people are even calling him a communist -- though I find that a tad extreme. Anyways, I don't feel basing my opinion of Obama doesn't seem to be the most suitable thing. I would like to base it off actual knowledge, the issues and decision he's made/is making and the outcome of these.

What will come of this new reform, both good and bad, ranging from its affects on ALL people? What other proposed decisions are there and what are the possible outcomes of them?

It is not my intention to cause a massive arguement. I'm just looking to find the truth behind some of these issues, not the biased side (which, I guess, I'll probably receive from some of you as well).

I must end this lengthy post for now. My hands is cramping up being that I typed all of this from my Devour. If there are any grammatical mistakes, I'll correct them once I reach a computer.

I don't mean to be rude, but if you do not understand the ramifications of this bill at this point you need to read....A LOT. Just because this passed congress doesn't mean this is law yet. I have a feeling there will be some lawsuits questioning the constitutionality of this bill.

I will say that your right to make decisions to effect your quality of life will take a hit if this becomes law. But please don't take my word for it, understand it yourself.

Exactly. I have talked to many people in the UK about this kind of healthcare plan, and they are ok with it. But they really haven't known anything else.... They have rationed medicines, wait times through the roof, and things like MRSA killing people off in droves, due to THIS VERY PLAN. We need to protest, and be heard. Obama is a socialist, and the only people supporting this, are people who feel they shouldn't have to work for a living, and the world owes them something.

Next they will be raiding the bank accounts of bill gates, steve jobs, eric schmidt, etc, and pretend to be robin hood. Then business will move out the the states, the states will fall. It happened to russia. Why wouldn't it happen here.

ARTICLECOMMENTS (23)Updated March 21, 2010
What Price Victory?
By Liz Peek - FOXNews.com
There is little doubt that the health care bill passed on Sunday night will likely mean less satisfactory health care for the majority of Americans.

PRINTEMAILSHARE RECOMMEND (3)
President Obama and his Democratic colleagues in Congress are celebrating the passage of a health care bill, heedless of the wound that their struggle has inflicted on the United States. The ugly battle has cost the president his popularity and his credibility, and has undermined the country&#8217;s confidence in our legislative process. It has distracted from efforts to right our economic ship and put our citizens back to work. Worst of all, just as Baby Boomers came to distrust government during the Vietnam War, so will a new generation now be forever skeptical of our country&#8217;s body politic.

Did President Obama ever have doubts? Did those protesters heckling his motorcade or taunting members of Congress penetrate that shield of self-assurance? Did voters who spurned his candidates in recent elections jiggle his equanimity? Who knows? Certainly he did not, perhaps could not, allow himself to waiver. Instead, Obama became so dug in on his quest to pass a health care bill that the impact of the conflict and the quality of the legislation became insignificant.

I have seen this before. As an analyst on Wall Street, I and my peers would occasionally find ourselves on the wrong side of a stock recommendation. Given our influence, changing an opinion could have serious consequences; it was not easy to lurch from &#8220;buy&#8221; to &#8220;sell.&#8221; We could get locked in, knowing that the ground under us was eroding as facts and prospects changed. The longer it went on, the more we forged fact from fantasy and plugged the holes in our arguments with doughy generalizations. I remember the look -- that look of bulldog certainty – on the faces of analysts holding fast to a losing proposition.

President Obama has had that look for months. He must know that this bill is a dud. It contains no real reform of the inefficient way medical treatments are charged to consumers and insurers, the ultimate source of spiraling costs. The projected fiscal benefits are bogus; honest analysis shows that the legislation will add to our deficit and drive up medical costs. No sane person can possibly imagine that we will provide medical care for an additional 30 million people without straining our health care infrastructure and pushing prices of doctor visits and medicines higher. Responsible people who have championed this bill have willfully ignored the fiscal tomfoolery because they believe passionately that we should have universal health care in this wealthy country. In their view that is justification enough for this bitter year-long battle.

The full consequences of the health care bill will become visible over time. I doubt they will be positive; most likely the expense will vastly exceed expectations, as was the case for Social Security and Medicare. Let us hope the legislation will eventually be changed to incorporate ideas that could actually lower costs, such as assuring that people have some &#8220;skin in the game&#8221; in their health care expenditures. Doubtless there will be subtle rationing in treatments; the country&#8217;s aging population more or less guarantees that process in any case. Overall, though certainly it will help those without coverage today, the bill just passed will likely mean less satisfactory health care for the majority of Americans.

The consequences near term are hard to gauge. The country is still trying to recover from a terrible financial crisis; millions are out of work and the last readings on consumer confidence were not encouraging. The health care bill will add to our tax burden and raise the cost of hiring workers. It has used up much of the federal government&#8217;s incremental taxing capacity. At the same time, states and cities across the country face crippling fiscal deficits that will also necessitate higher taxes and may lead to public sector layoffs. These challenges are not simple; political leaders will need widespread support from voters to make tough decisions. There will need to be sacrifices. Unfortunately, the country is not in a compliant mood. The bitter battle has drawn hard lines in the political sand – ironic for a president who campaigned on a promise to reduce partisan frictions.

Was it worth it? Boosters laud passage of the health care bill as an historic event. Yes, it is – and so was the Charge of the Light Brigade.

Next they will be raiding the bank accounts of bill gates, steve jobs, eric schmidt, etc, and pretend to be robin hood. Then business will move out the the states, the states will fall. It happened to russia. Why wouldn't it happen here.

Click to expand...

No no no.

If you are in a secure job or rich you are OK. If you are VERY poor you are OK - you have Medicaid. If you are elderly you are ok - you have Medicare. There are 32 million other Americans who are not ok.

SOME have not bothered to get insurance when they could have - but not all 32 million of them.

A large number have sky-rocketing premiums, a significant number can't get insurance because of so-called pre-existing conditions - what are they supposed to do?

OK, what has been passed might not be the best solution but it will be better than the status quo.

What we have in the UK is not perfect, it is state run so bureaucracy does get the better of it at times - but I would rather have that than vested self interest running the system which only wants to look after people who are not likely to get sick.

Helping the less fortunate is not communism - it's not even socialism - it's basic decency. And please don't tell me charities should pick up the tab - it's a far bigger problem than charities can deal with.

Just to be clear for those who oppose reading, this bill isn't universal health care. So if you like coming off as having some semblance of a clue about what you are speaking of, ditch that notion.

I feel that many people who sling around words like socialist have zero clue what that term actually means and more importantly, what socialist goods and services we use every day here in the good ole US of A. So for those of you who are in the dark, here's a list of socialist goods and services that every American enjoys. If you are against socialism, put your money where your big mouth is and go ahead and STOP taking advantage of these socialist services:

-Social Security
-Medicare/Medicaid
-State Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP)
-Police, Fire, and Emergency Services
-US Postal Service
-Roads and Highways
-Air Travel (regulated by the socialist FAA)
-US railway system
-Public subways and metro systems
-Public bus and lightrail systems
-Rest areas on highways
-sidewalks
-All government funded local and state projects
-public water and sewer services (goodbye socialist toilet, socialist shower, socialist dishwasher, socialist kitchen sink, socialist outdoor hose)
-public and state universities and colleges
-public primary and secondary schools
-Sesame Street (all of PBS in fact)
-publicly funded anti-drug use education
-public museums
-libraries
-public parks and beaches
-state and national parks
-public zoos
-unemployment insurance
-municipal garbage and recycling services
-treatment at any hospital or clinic that ever received funding from local, state, or the federal government (pretty much all of them)
-medical services and medications that were created or derived from any government grant or research funding (pretty much all of them)
-socialist byproducts of government institutions such as duct tape and velcro (you know, inventions of that Nazi-esque organization called NASA)
-Use of the internet, email, and networked computers (the DoD's ARPANET was the basis for computer networking. Go ahead and cancel your Android Forums account because by participating in this thread, you are enjoying the fruits of socialist services).
-foodstuffs, meats, produce, and crops that were grown with, fed with, raised with, or that contain inputs from crops grown with government subsidies.
-clothing made from crops (cotton) that were grown with or that contain inputs from government subsidies. You know, like that "Made in the USA" t-shirt you're probably wearing with OBAMANATION printed on it. You hypocrite.
-All anti-socialist veterans of the government run socialist military must forego their VA benefits and insist on paying for their own medical care.
-touring government buildings such as the Capitol.

In addition, those who denounce socialism should never visit the following &#8220;socialist&#8221; locations:
-Smithsonian museums such as the Air and Space Museum or Museum of American History.,
-the socialist Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson Monuments.
-the government operated Statue of Liberty.
-the grand canyon
-the socialist World War II and Vietnam Veterans Memorial
-the government run socialist propaganda location known as Arlington National Cemetery

Also, in keeping with an anti-socialism rhetoric, I would require you to protest the government funded and therefore socialist military of the United States.

What I want to know is where all you "fiscal conservatives" were when Bush passed his tax cuts for the rich and wealthy which cost this country 2 TRILLION dollars. This health care plan is a drop in the bucket compared to that. Republicans spend 2 trillion on a tax break for the rich, spend over 1 trillion on 2 wars (billions of which have been siphoned off to the private contractors who contribute to Republican campaigns) and another trillion give or take a few bucks on a prescription drug bill that has served to basically enrich the pharmaceutical companies.

And NOW Republicans decide to tighten the pocketbook? Give me a break. Any outcrying about this HC bill from the right is completely disingenuous. The Republican spending I outlined above makes the cost of this healthcare bill look like petty cash. So spare me the outrage.

Look. Medical expenses are the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy in this country. This policy goes a long way to counter that. That means those of you who have or have loved ones who have cancer, will no longer accumulate hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses to keep you alive. And your insurance provider will have to commit a criminal act to drop you from their plan. I don't know about any of you but as a responsible husband and parent, part of my financial plan included having at least $20,000 in savings designated specifically for medical emergencies. Guess what? I can now (well after this bill goes into effect in 4 years) use that money to improve my house, buy a new car, take a much needed vacation, or put into my sons' college fund.

This bill will eliminate pre-existing conditions for children. That means those of you who are parents, no longer have to worry about your insurance provider denying coverage to your child who had asthma from birth.

This bill will also give access to insurance to Americans who are uninsured because of pre-existing conditions through a temporary high-risk pool. MSG me if you are unclear what this means.

This bill will prohibit insurance companies from dropping people when they get sick in all individual plans.

This bill will counter Bush's horrible Prescription Drug Bill by lowering the costs of prescription drugs for seniors.

This bill will offer tax credits to small businesses who purchase health coverage.

This bill will eliminate lifetime coverage limits and annual coverage limits on ALL insurance plans. This means you can get sick more than once or twice and not worry about having to pay out of pocket if you get sick more than the amount the insurance companies say you can get sick.

This bill will allow coverage of an insured's child until 26. This means that 23-year-old of yours who will be hit one day by a drunk driver and spend six months recovering in the hospital will now not go bankrupt because you will be able to keep him on your insurance policy.

This bill will require new plans to cover preventative services and immunizations without cost-sharing. Meaning the insurance companies can't bump up everyone's premiums to offer this.

This bill will ensure consumers have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to appeal new insurance plan decisions. This means there will no longer be that feeling of helplessness when the insurance company bounces you around from one service agent to the next and keeps prolonging your case and denying the payout of claims.

This bill will require premium rebates to enrollees from insurers with high administrative expenditures and require public disclosure of the percent of premiums applied to overhead costs. This means that if the insurance company is performing inefficiently, hiring more workers than it needs to handle the paperwork, they cannot pass their overhead onto you via your premium. They have to disclose how much of your premium is due to their overhead.

Do you understand that insurance companies are FOR PROFIT companies? Do you REALLY understand what that means? That if it's a choice between you and a dollar, the dollar will win? Is that what you're fighting for?

This bill will give people the peace of mind that if they lose their job, a very likely scenario in this recession, that they will still be able to obtain medical care.

32 million of our brothers and sisters who would not have have health care coverage will have it because of this bill.

Republicans have been consistently wrong about the effects of social programs and economic programs proposed by Democrats. Wrong on Social Security, wrong on Medicare, and wrong on Clinton's economic plans which resulted in the biggest surplus in American history which Bush, in 8 years, turned into the biggest deficit in American history.

How much of this was done because Obama really thought this bill was a great idea? I've been hearing that without the passing of this, his term just would've been sunk.

Why didn't they focus on something like unemployment which, to me, seems like it affects more people (though that may just be because it has affect me directly but the lack of healthcare hasn't.

Click to expand...

He did account for unemployment, this will create 20k new jobs for the Gov. Jobs like the IRS agent who will show up to fine you when you cant afford to pay, or all this new Gov employees who will now be getting cushy retirement benefits, who do you think will pay for those?

Just to be clear for those who oppose reading, this bill isn't universal health care. So if you like coming off as having some semblance of a clue about what you are speaking of, ditch that notion.

I feel that many people who sling around words like socialist have zero clue what that term actually means and more importantly, what socialist goods and services we use every day here in the good ole US of A. So for those of you who are in the dark, here's a list of socialist goods and services that every American enjoys. If you are against socialism, put your money where your big mouth is and go ahead and STOP taking advantage of these socialist services:

-Social Security
-Medicare/Medicaid
-State Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP)
-Police, Fire, and Emergency Services
-US Postal Service
-Roads and Highways
-Air Travel (regulated by the socialist FAA)
-US railway system
-Public subways and metro systems
-Public bus and lightrail systems
-Rest areas on highways
-sidewalks
-All government funded local and state projects
-public water and sewer services (goodbye socialist toilet, socialist shower, socialist dishwasher, socialist kitchen sink, socialist outdoor hose)
-public and state universities and colleges
-public primary and secondary schools
-Sesame Street (all of PBS in fact)
-publicly funded anti-drug use education
-public museums
-libraries
-public parks and beaches
-state and national parks
-public zoos
-unemployment insurance
-municipal garbage and recycling services
-treatment at any hospital or clinic that ever received funding from local, state, or the federal government (pretty much all of them)
-medical services and medications that were created or derived from any government grant or research funding (pretty much all of them)
-socialist byproducts of government institutions such as duct tape and velcro (you know, inventions of that Nazi-esque organization called NASA)
-Use of the internet, email, and networked computers (the DoD's ARPANET was the basis for computer networking. Go ahead and cancel your Android Forums account because by participating in this thread, you are enjoying the fruits of socialist services).
-foodstuffs, meats, produce, and crops that were grown with, fed with, raised with, or that contain inputs from crops grown with government subsidies.
-clothing made from crops (cotton) that were grown with or that contain inputs from government subsidies. You know, like that "Made in the USA" t-shirt you're probably wearing with OBAMANATION printed on it. You hypocrite.
-All anti-socialist veterans of the government run socialist military must forego their VA benefits and insist on paying for their own medical care.
-touring government buildings such as the Capitol.

In addition, those who denounce socialism should never visit the following

He did account for unemployment, this will create 20k new jobs for the Gov. Jobs like the IRS agent who will show up to fine you when you cant afford to pay, or all this new Gov employees who will now be getting cushy retirement benefits, who do you think will pay for those?

Click to expand...

Under 17,000 jobs. Sorry but I'm a stickler for accurate data. I don't like embellishment especially relating to factual data that is easily researchable.

Why wouldn't you be able to afford to pay CampD? Are you poor? Can you not hold a job?

Starting in 2014, most Americans will be required to buy health insurance or pay a penalty.

The penalty will be phased in, starting at 1 percent of income in 2014, and rising to the maximum of $2,085 for a family in 2016.

American Indians don&#8217;t have to buy insurance. Those with religious objections or a financial hardship can also avoid the requirement. And if you would pay more than 8 percent of your income for the cheapest available plan, you will not be penalized for failing to buy coverage. (for those of you who are math challenged, 8% of a $35,000 a year salary is $2,800 which equates to $233.00 a month for insurance...so essentially, anyone who has even the crappiest of plans will not be penalized.)

Those who are exempt, or under 30, can buy a policy that only pays for catastrophic medical costs. It must allow for three primary care visits a year as well.

Heck, even when I was 15 bagging groceries at A&P, I wouldn't have penalized.

And if you're a parent of a family and don't want to provide health care for your wife and children, you SHOULD be penalized because you're a bad parent.

At my wife's office, this bill will make it cheaper to pay the fine than to provide insurance coverage. Then the employee that once was covered, now is forced to buy their own coverage.

If this was such a good bill, why did Obama, Pelosi, etc have to 'buy' votes? Why the special deals (Nebraska) and the Executive order (Stupak).

No Dem would also answer any questions directly about how this was going to be paid for. Each one of them had the same answer....pre-existing coverage, can't be dropped if you get sick....blah, blah, blah....answer the question....they can't....FAIL!

Cheaper for who mrjam3s? Your wife or her employer? Please specify so I can properly reply.

As for how it will be paid for, most of the money is coming from taxes on tanning equipment and medical devices, as well as social security. There's not going to be much if any additional burden to the general taxpayer at all.

Again, what is being passed isn't socialized medicine. It's a reform of the way insurance companies are allowed to behave towards their customers, and a public option for those who don't work under employers that provide healthcare. Since employers are heavily encouraged through taxes to offer insurance, it's basically a way to provide coverage to freelancers and very small business owners without breaking the bank.

What people seem to forget is that we're already paying for people who don't have insurance. Both through taxes and through increased hospital costs, since they have to cover the free treatment they're required by law to give somehow. Unethical practices by insurance companies have got to stop, and while this may or may not have been the right way to do it, at least it's something.

Right now, not a dime of insurance premiums is subject to taxation unless you paymore than $10,200 in premiums per year. I don't pay that much for myself/wife/son, do you? All that this bill does is provide a way to get money from people who are buying really expensive plans that include unnecessary stuff like gym memberships. The general taxpayer won't be affected by them.

The reason perhaps you weren't getting answers from Democrats is because maybe they were under the assumption that you're an intelligent person that did some research, like looking up the finances behind this bill at the website for the Congressional Budget Office.

Exactly. I have talked to many people in the UK about this kind of healthcare plan, and they are ok with it. But they really haven't known anything else.... They have rationed medicines, wait times through the roof, and things like MRSA killing people off in droves, due to THIS VERY PLAN. We need to protest, and be heard. Obama is a socialist, and the only people supporting this, are people who feel they shouldn't have to work for a living, and the world owes them something.

Click to expand...

I work for a living and I'm glad to see that people who couldn't get healthcare before now have a chance at it. I'm willing to pay extra to make this happen if need be. You are welcome to protest and lie and shout your little hate filled rants, but I'm not sure you are going to do yourself any favors in the long run. Enjoy your Fox News worldview while it lasts.

I work for a living and I'm glad to see that people who couldn't get healthcare before now have a chance at it. I'm willing to pay extra to make this happen if need be. You are welcome to protest and lie and shout your little hate filled rants, but I'm not sure you are going to do yourself any favors in the long run. Enjoy your Fox News worldview while it lasts.

Click to expand...

I feel the same. I am part of a nation filled with other people. We rise as one and fall as one. I work full time and have a fledgling business on the side. I'm happy to pay a few dollars extra to provide health insurance to those who are not as fortunate as me because if tragedy struck and I was suddenly out of a job, I would want there to be a safety net for me so that my family could receive health care while I was looking for more work. This is what the concept of a united country is: we look out for each other.

Also, IOWA, I have to call bullshit. According to a NHS Survey conducted in 2004 by the UK Department of Health (the most recent survey to date), 92% of Brit inpatients said they were satisfied with their treatment; 87% of GP users were satisfied with their GP; 87% of hospital outpatients were satisfied with the service they received; and 70% of Accident and Emergency department users reported being satisfied. If you want me to drudge up the numbers I will but let's just say Brits are FAR more satisfied with their hybrid system of NHS and Private Health Insurance (you did know that right? That Brits can opt to purchase private insurance or opt to go with the nationalized health care system?) than Americans are with our private health care system.

Also, what exactly do you mean by "wait times are through the roof" and where did you get your data?

Here's an article from Businessweek. I doubt you'll actually read it so I'll do the work for you:

If you find a suspicious-looking mole and want to see a dermatologist, you can expect an average wait of 38 days in the U.S., and up to 73 days if you live in Boston, according to researchers at the University of California at San Francisco who studied the matter. Got a knee injury? A 2004 survey by medical recruitment firm Merritt, Hawkins & Associates found the average time needed to see an orthopedic surgeon ranges from 8 days in Atlanta to 43 days in Los Angeles. Nationwide, the average is 17 days. "Waiting is definitely a problem in the U.S., especially for basic care," says Karen Davis, president of the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund, which studies health-care policy.

All this time spent "queuing," as other nations call it, stems from too much demand and too little supply. Only one-third of U.S. doctors are general practitioners, compared with half in most European countries. On top of that, only 40% of U.S. doctors have arrangements for after-hours care, vs. 75% in the rest of the industrialized world. Consequently, some 26% of U.S. adults in one survey went to an emergency room in the past two years because they couldn't get in to see their regular doctor, a significantly higher rate than in other countries.

There is no systemized collection of data on wait times in the U.S. That makes it difficult to draw comparisons with countries that have national health systems, where wait times are not only tracked but made public. However, a 2005 survey by the Commonwealth Fund of sick adults in six nations found that only 47% of U.S. patients could get a same- or next-day appointment for a medical problem, worse than every other country except Canada.

Cheaper for who mrjam3s? Your wife or her employer? Please specify so I can properly reply.

As for how it will be paid for, most of the money is coming from taxes on tanning equipment and medical devices, as well as social security. There's not going to be much if any additional burden to the general taxpayer at all.

Again, what is being passed isn't socialized medicine. It's a reform of the way insurance companies are allowed to behave towards their customers, and a public option for those who don't work under employers that provide healthcare. Since employers are heavily encouraged through taxes to offer insurance, it's basically a way to provide coverage to freelancers and very small business owners without breaking the bank.

What people seem to forget is that we're already paying for people who don't have insurance. Both through taxes and through increased hospital costs, since they have to cover the free treatment they're required by law to give somehow. Unethical practices by insurance companies have got to stop, and while this may or may not have been the right way to do it, at least it's something.

Right now, not a dime of insurance premiums is subject to taxation unless you paymore than $10,200 in premiums per year. I don't pay that much for myself/wife/son, do you? All that this bill does is provide a way to get money from people who are buying really expensive plans that include unnecessary stuff like gym memberships. The general taxpayer won't be affected by them.

The reason perhaps you weren't getting answers from Democrats is because maybe they were under the assumption that you're an intelligent person that did some research, like looking up the finances behind this bill at the website for the Congressional Budget Office.

Click to expand...

Well, it's obvious what side you're on and what side I'm on. I don't believe I can change your view and vice versa. There is information all over the place that supports your side and information that supports my view. You use the CBO info, I do not. Simple disagreement.

There was a vote. Like it or not, I have to go with it. Getting into debates like this is a waste of time....my time, at least.

The only thing I can do is voice my opinion to my lawmakers, then vote.
The American people are a smart bunch...and as President Obama said "that's why there are elections". I disagree with this bill and I will use my vote to say so.

All of these arguments for or against are moot seeing as Congress has absolutely no authority under the Constitution to mandate every citizen to buy a product.

There are already a dozen or more states that are planning to file suit against the federal government as soon as this is signed into law. This will quickly make its way to the Supreme Court where it should be unceremoniously tossed into the trash pile of congressional follies.

If it does stand, I plan to take full advantage of what our Democrat friends have done. I will negotiate with my employer to pay me cash instead of insurance, then I will refuse to buy insurance and pay the $750 annual fine to the IRS. Then, because I cannot be denied a policy whenever I decide to apply for one, I will buy insurance if, and only if, I come down with a serious illness.

While it's not the perfect bill (a perfect bill could never be passed), the obstructionism that was displayed over a life-or-death matter was sickening and sad. No, Republicans should not have been shut out from the beginning, but let's be realistic: not one Republican would have supported any progress on the issue because of how the party has evolved to work regardless of how early they were involved. The same people against progress on this issue would have been against social security and medicare and, in ideological terms, would also be against something as fundamental as public education (government takeover of education, my hard-earned tax money going to educate the lazy (that's right-wing codespeak for anyone who isn't white), hopeless lower classes when I should be paying for my own children, blah blah) or the post office (I don't want the government handling my personal mail!).

We love pretending that we're independent frontier-folk and we don't need the government, but if you got sick or your uninsured neighbor got sick, the costs would be unfathomable, humiliating, and ruinous. In that event, all the absurd nationalistic rhetoric where we cheer that we have the best health care in the world (which in reality we don't) won't make you feel better while you slip through the enormous cracks that exist in supposedly one of the wealthiest nations in the world.

And, no, I'm not an across-the-board liberal or lefty - I'm concerned about unnecessary taxes, wasteful spending, and debt. I'm pragmatic and believe that taxes should go to things that are important. Health care is one of the important things.

All of these arguments for or against are moot seeing as Congress has absolutely no authority under the Constitution to mandate every citizen to buy a product.

There are already a dozen or more states that are planning to file suit against the federal government as soon as this is signed into law. This will quickly make its way to the Supreme Court where it should be unceremoniously tossed into the trash pile of congressional follies.

If it does stand, I plan to take full advantage of what our Democrat friends have done. I will negotiate with my employer to pay me cash instead of insurance, then I will refuse to buy insurance and pay the $750 annual fine to the IRS. Then, because I cannot be denied a policy whenever I decide to apply for one, I will buy insurance if, and only if, I come down with a serious illness.

Click to expand...

I'll bet you $750 dollars you won't do this.

Also, this in no way shape or form violates the Constitution.

If you want to talk Constitutional violations, we can always discuss things like Bush's Military Commissions Act of 2006. That's the kind of stuff you should be scared about.

No, Republicans should not have been shut out from the beginning, but let's be realistic: not one Republican would have supported any progress on the issue because of how the party has evolved to work regardless of how early they were involved.

Click to expand...

Spot on. Yes, I would have preferred a true bi-partisan bill as well, but one side coming further and further off of their preferred position while the other side makes no moves at all is not my idea of bi-partisanship. The Republicans were not involved in the process because they made it plain at the outset that the only involvement they sought was killing any bill that did not include 100% of what they wanted.

I can think of a number of concessions that Democrats made in an effort to court Republican votes, and I really can't think of any significant concessions made by the Republicans (if anyone would care to point any out to me, I'd be interested to know what they are), nor did they get any GOP votes at all. With that being the case, I don't feel a lot of sympathy for them...